DMCA Prevents Photoshop Support of Nikon Camera 656
Will writes "PhotoshopNews.com reports that the risk of getting sued under the DMCA prevents Adobe from fully supporting the raw file format of Nikon's top professional camera Nikon D2X. The file format contains encrypted white balance information that is necessary to render the image correctly and while the encryption can and has been broken, Adobe fears getting sued under the DMCA if they decrypt the data."
DMCA prevents Nikon from making money... (Score:5, Insightful)
People who would be purchasing a high-end camera like the D2X and D2H would probably only be doing so to use a high-end piece of software to manipulate the 12+MP digital images.
When a potential buyer looks at Photoshop and sees that it isn't supporting the D2X/H fully because of some retarded move by Nikon to try and make money they are likely going to find another camera. People interested in the D2X/H cameras are going to be shopping around looking for the one that best fits their needs and aren't going to be impulse buying a $5000 camera.
Really dumb move Nikon.
Exactly... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Exactly... (Score:5, Interesting)
But now electronics is vital, and there's little doubt that Canon has the high ground in all things electronic. Their cameras are far superior in design than Nikon's.
However, I still think Nikon lenses are better made and smoother to use, which I appreciate. Of course this might be simply because I haven't seen Canon's more expensive lenses. My D30 has the low-end 28-135 zoom which works great for me but isn't as silkly smooth as Nikon's 17-85 offering.
I almost switched back to Nikon with the D100 but a last minute financial crisis kept me in the Canon camp. In retrospect, that looks like the right decision in view of Canon's newer cameras, and especially now with Nikon trying to pull this on customers.
Pity Canon still doesn't have a low-end HD camcorder to compete with the Sony FX1 and upcoming Panasonic models. That's my next planned purchase and Canon's doesn't even exist in the market
D
NIkon never gets another cent from me (Score:3, Interesting)
Here in NSW, Australia Nikon products are repaired by a company called Maxwell. 8 months after buying the camera I started to have what I believe was a shutter jam problem after about half an hour of moderate use. The problem would show up and occur more and more frequently until it was happening every 3rd shot. I do wildlife and particularly bird photography for fun and this made the camera unusable.
What kind of warranty support did
Re:Exactly... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Exactly... (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, Canon RAW is supported in Photoshop with the Camera RAW plugin [adobe.com]. Photoshop CS2 [adobe.com] is coming out very soon and should have some major improvements over PS CS.
Very few people use GIMP professionally I've found. Photography is the sole reason I've switched back from Linux. Try as it might, digikam and GIMP just can't keep up with professional grade RAW Converters such as Capture One Pro [phaseone.com]. GIMP supports RAW with the appropriate plugin [rozeta.com.pl], but sorry, it's just not Photoshop.
Canon "everywhere" is just marketing. (Score:4, Interesting)
not anymore... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:DMCA prevents Nikon from making money... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:DMCA prevents Nikon from making money... (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, it really doesn't, since everyone knows the DMCA only applies to encryption intended to protect copyrighted works, and color calibration data is just information that does not represent a creative work, therefore it can't be copyrighted.
Moreover, even if you did consider that tiny portion of a photo to be a creative work, it is a creative work in which one can assume that the person opening the file is the person who took the photo, or at least working for the same company.
Finally, the encryption isn't being explicitly added by the content producer (the photographer), which therefore means that it falls outside the DMCA by definition.
So... it sounds like Adobe suddenly did an about-face and decided the DMCA is evil for reasons other than saving their backsides. Either that or (more likely) they have a bone to pick with Nikon over something else and they're using this as leverage. That would be my guess....
Re:DMCA prevents Nikon from making money... (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't see any evidence that Adobe is "up in arms." It seems to me that they are respecting what another company sees as that company's IP. The slashdot crowd may be up in arms, but I'm pretty sure that no one here (officially) speaks for Adobe.
Re:DMCA prevents Nikon from making money... (Score:3, Informative)
Any one else remember Dmitry Sklyarov [alternet.org]?
Makes it kind of funny to see Adobe get locked out of someone else's IP.
Re:DMCA prevents Nikon from making money... (Score:5, Informative)
Nikon D2X white balance encryption [fredmiranda.com]
Nikon saying you don't need Photoshop [dpreview.com]
Re:DMCA prevents Nikon from making money... (Score:3, Interesting)
Around 400MB. For a single image!
Not to mention that Nikon Capture is generally slow as molasses, even on my A64 3500+ w/ 1GB RAM. Who do they think they're fooling?
Re:DMCA prevents Nikon from making money... (Score:3, Interesting)
the only thing I use Nikon Capture for anymore is to control the camera to take shots, and even that has gotten less straight forward starting with Nikon Capture 3.
I agree - this is a bad move for Nikon
Agreed... (Score:5, Insightful)
Truly no issue here. Let Nikon make their own Photoshop if they want, but I think this is going to be 'case closed'.
Re:Agreed... (Score:5, Informative)
Well... This isn't quite true. Nikon does in fact have photoshop RAW plug-ins, and while they lack features of ACR they do work.
Also, this only effect White Balance. The files can still be read just fine, you'll just have to set WB manually (or use PS's Auto WB) Which really isn't that big of deal since most photographers tweak WB anyway.
Also Nikon Capture is ~$90 ($99 MSRP) which even has a button to open a NEF in Photoshop.
Anyway.. now that the fact are straight... This is a boneheaded decision by Nikon, but they are famous for such things. They make fantastic products, but the management has always been retarded.
Doubly Agreed... (Score:5, Informative)
I've got a Nikon Coolscan slide scanner. It's a wonderful unit that does excellent high-quality scans.
One day I brought it into work to scan some work-related slides. Since I use Vuescan instead of the Nikon software, I just needed the drivers. The original CDs were in a box somewhere from a recent move so I figured I'd just download the drivers off their web site and I'd be good to go.
Simple, right? Nope. I visited their web site and found they don't offer drivers. What modern peripherals company does not offer drivers online? Instead I had to register, provide proof that I owned the NikonScan software, and download an upgrade to it. Half an hour later I found out the upgrade wouldn't install without the original being present. If it won't install without the original present, why did I have to provide proof that I owned the original? Furthermore, it was packaged in such a way that you couldn't extract just the drivers.
I ended up going to some third party website which required I register, give a working email address, and opt out of a ton of mailing lists. 10kB and a virus scan later, I had the drivers installed.
Clue for Nikon: If someone wants drivers for your hardware, it's reasonable to assume they have the physical hardware present, which means they probably already paid for it. You don't have to make them jump through hoops with the original bundled CDs just to download hardware drivers.
Re:Disagreed! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:DMCA prevents Nikon from making money... (Score:5, Insightful)
What a lot of people seem to forget is that ALL of the Raw formats Implemented By the camera manufacturers are Proprietary and encrypted. Canon Is no different. The only reason anybody is raising complaints is because nikon has not yet released the newest version of their Raw Format to adobe.
Re:DMCA prevents Nikon from making money... (Score:5, Interesting)
A reply of "What camera are you using?" frequently gets a disdainful "You must be an idiot" style reply that can only come from the arrogant ignorant when they're wrong, but are convinced they're right. (Everyone whose ever answered a tech support line knows exactly what I mean)
It's amazing how many people are out there using these cameras and are convinced that "Raw" is some universal standard that everyone's supporting.
Re:DMCA prevents Nikon from making money... (Score:5, Funny)
The only way around that would be to name the files Image001.NotAFuckingFormatRAW
Re:DMCA prevents Nikon from making money... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:DMCA prevents Nikon from making money... (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Our canned response to a a frequently asked question produced hostility in some customers.
2. Therefore, the customers are idiots.
3. ????
4. Profit!
Permit me to suggest that a better answer would be "Some camera manufacturers use a proprietary format and call it RAW. What camera are you using?"
If you are in customer service, I guarantee you that something close to 100% of your customers are idiots. (Dilbert's law - "Everyone is stupid about something sometime.") Your goal should not be to find better customres, but to accomodate the stupidity of your customers while making them happy to give you their money. That's the theory. In practice, when the customer's stupidity makes them unhappy about reality, you find a way to present the reality in a factual, accurate way that does not reflect badly on you. I call it "honest spin." In some cases there is NO honest spin that will make the customers happy; in this situation, you either lie or fire the customer.
Re:DMCA prevents Nikon from making money... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:DMCA prevents Nikon from making money... (Score:4, Insightful)
LOL. Well, you're locked-in, so when Nikon decides it wants some fun you HAVE to bend over with a smile. Fortunately, not everyone is in the same position.
What a lot of people seem to forget is that ALL of the Raw formats Implemented By the camera manufacturers are Proprietary and encrypted
All are proprietary, but as far as I know Nikon's is the first one with encrypted parts. Since the encryption is easily broken, its only purpose seems to be to invoke the threat of DMCA.
The only reason anybody is raising complaints is because nikon has not yet released the newest version of their Raw Format to adobe.
It seems pretty clear from the article that Nikon is NOT going to allow Adobe to decrypt the
As I said, it's pure Dilbert. Nikon got itself a bazooka, took careful aim at its foot and fired...
Re:DMCA prevents Nikon from making money... (Score:5, Interesting)
It is painfully slow, even for transferring just a few images to JPG/Photoshop. It is in fact so slow that I bought a $25 shareware app that is 10 times faster and actually has a batch mode.
So I think Nikon should stick with the Cameras and let Adobe do the NEF support.
Here's why it's an issue (Score:5, Insightful)
I also don't want my photo library to depend on some secret file format that may end up being completely unsupported and unreadable in ten years' time. What if Linux takes over the desktop, but Nikon decide not to bother with a file format reader for Linux? What if Nikon go out of business, and Windows 2010 can't run the plugin to read your library of thousands of images?
I absolutely demand that all my photos be in an open, documented file format. And I think you're being foolhardy not to demand likewise.
Sure, you can use the RAW converter on each image as you take them, convert to a sensible format like PNG, and store that--but you're losing information by doing so, making the Nikon a much less appealing and less professional camera.
The really professional companies like Hasselblad understand this, and have committed to Adobe's open DNG raw format [photoworkshop.com]. I wouldn't buy any camera that pretended to be "professional" but didn't support DNG or some other open file format.
Re:Here's why it's an issue (Score:5, Informative)
And don't think this is some far-fetched scenario. I bought their LS-2000 film scanner a bunch of years ago, with a 50 slide batch feeder. It was an awesome piece of hardware, but the software always sucked. You couldn't use the batch feeder particularly usefully, because the software wouldn't allow you to do an autoexposure operation before each scan, the way you could when scanning negs or individual slides. (Yes, you had to expose the WHOLE set of slides at the same exposure. Mind-boggling.) I had to write a ridiculous AppleScript to simulate mouse clicks in particular locations to get it to work.
Anyway, that's not my point. The LS-2000 was connected to the computer via SCSI. About a year or two after I bought it, Nikon came out with the newer line of scanners that used FireWire or USB instead of SCSI. Almost immediately after that, they stopped supporting SCSI scanners in the new versions of their software. And THEN they fixed the software so that you could do the autoexposure operation before each scan.
So I got stuck with a scanner that could never perform it's main function well and that's no longer supported by their proprietary software. And now they want to tell me that they're going to encrypt the files coming out of their digital cameras? It's hard enough to get good information out of the NEF files coming out of my D70 as it is without using their slow, shoddy software. If you're not locked in by lens purchases, DON'T BUY from a company that's so hostile to its customers as this!
I'm so fed up with Nikon I'm about ready to sell all my lenses and cameras and film scanner and move to Canon entirely. Their approach to technology is so unbelievably inept it makes me sick. My only hope is that a company as large and public as Adobe can turn around Nikon's attitude by making people more aware of stupid policies like this.
Re:Here's why it's an issue (Score:4, Interesting)
I also had a hellish experience with an APS loader for the scanner. My experience with Nikon's "support" has already ensured I'd never buy another Nikon product. However, I thought that was somewhat irrelevant to the discussion at hand...
So yeah, I'm a Canon guy now. Two Canon pocket digital cameras, a Canon camcorder, and a Canon flatbed scanner. Nikon can sit on a tripod and swivel.
Frankly, I'm not that impressed with Nikon's sub-$1000 digital cameras either. When I look at the images on dpreview and other sites, to my eyes the color fringeing is noticably worse than Canon. I think at this point Nikon are mostly surviving on vendor lock-in and their exaggerated reputation.
Re:DMCA prevents Nikon from making money... (Score:3, Funny)
Actually... (Score:5, Informative)
Furthermore, several high-end photographers are extolling the virtues of stand-alone raw processors as an addition to their photoshop workflow.
I'm not saying that it's morally acceptable for Nikon to lock part of their RAW format, I'm just saying that the impact of this upon the pro photo world is far less significant then it would appear.
This is DRM on Your Photographs (Score:5, Insightful)
Furthermore, several high-end photographers are extolling the virtues of stand-alone raw processors as an addition to their photoshop workflow.
Unfortunately, no standalone raw processors can support Nikon's encrypted format
I'm not saying that it's morally acceptable for Nikon to lock part of their RAW format, I'm just saying that the impact of this upon the pro photo world is far less significant then it would appear.
Only if what you are saying is that having only one raw converter, Nikon's, is not significant.
This is truely significant. What Nikon is saying is that Nikon owns the file and that the photographer does not.
SteveM
Re:DMCA prevents Nikon from making money... (Score:3, Informative)
The people that buy cameras like the D2 series are professional photographers for the most part. Many are already invested in one camera system or the other. For most the body is a small investment (though not quite as small as it use to be). Many photographers have invested $10,000 or more in lens($$$), filters($), and speed lights($$)
Re:DMCA prevents Nikon from making money... (Score:3, Insightful)
Everyone I know who spends mucho money on camera's has photoshop. It has been that way the past 10 years. Excluding support for photoshop from a camera is like blocking AOL from your modem. Sure, you got a modem, but there is a sizable chunk of people who won't use it.
I know Nikon wants to sell their own software. But forcing p
Re:DMCA prevents Nikon from making money... (Score:4, Interesting)
It seems clear that the camera is creating the work and as such is not entitled to any copyright protection.
Re:DMCA prevents Nikon from making money... (Score:5, Informative)
I can't explain it. It's not.
Copyright does not protect "functional" aspects of a written work. For example, you cannot copyright an accounting form, even if you can show that you have discovered a totally unique method of laying out the form that makes it twice as easy to check the calculations in half the time. Similarly, the white balance information is functional. Furthermore, the white balance information is functional in a way that has nothing to do with access control. Ipso facto, the white balance information cannot be protected as part of a copyrighted work.
Also, sec 1201(a)(3) clearly states:
As used in this subsection -
(A) to "circumvent a technological measure" means to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner; and
(B) a technological measure "effectively controls access to a work" if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work.
Nikon does not have a copyright in the white balance information. Nikon does not have a copyright in an image taken by the camera. Nikon does have a copyright in the firmware of the camera and in whatever software they distribute that reads this encrypted information.
Are you accessing the firmware in the camera when you manipulate these images? No. Are you accessing the Nikon software when you manipulate these images? Presumably, no -- I assume Adobe broke this encryption without using the Nikon software --.
Therefore, you are the copyright owner, and you implicitly grant authority to Adobe to access your Nikon-photographed image data, such that THIS IS NOT A DMCA VIOLATION as a matter of black letter statutory law.
Thank you... thank you very much.
Not as much as you might think... (Score:3, Informative)
The encryption of the white balance information is really pretty trivial; many people who use Photoshop's raw converter set it manually anyway. What's scary is that if Nikon gets away with this, they might be embold
Re:DMCA prevents Nikon from making money... (Score:4, Interesting)
Nikon will lose zero dollars over this. If you are a professional photographer, you are not going to settle for something less just because Adobe won't support it. It is not like Nikon prevent you from getting to your shots. Nikon has their own tools to view and even convert the data. My brother-in-law is a pro-photographer (which lets me use some really great cameras even though I suck as a photographer ; ) ). He does use Photoshop and once I showed him the Gimp, he uses that as well for things that the Gimp excels at. However, to him the only thing that matter is the shot and not whether Photoshop supports it. He could care less about Adobe supporting his camera.
I think your comment falls more on the line of professional graphic artists, and certainly _not_ a photographer. I would like to know a real, professional photographer that would not use the best camera around just because Adobe doesn't want to license a format from Nikon.
Now, as an Open Source geek, I do think that all of this crap is silly. However, this is the nature of the beast when you live in the land of proprietary crap.
Exactly and you just countered your own post. People in the market for a $5,000 dollar camera are not going to worry about Adobe supporting the cameras format. Nikon supplies the tools to get to the shot which is all that matters to someone willing to spend $5k on a camera.encrypted? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:encrypted? (Score:5, Informative)
Not entirely correct... (Score:3, Insightful)
Photoshop does not directly, officially support .NEF, but the PictureProject software with the D2H and most Nikon digital SLRs (including the D70, which I have), has a
Re:encrypted? (Score:5, Insightful)
Breaking encryption that controls access to a copyrighted work is what is against the DMCA.
Unless nikon is claiming copyright protection on their white balance information, it woudln't have much of a chance of winning (and it's hardly an original or creative work)
Putting things into perspective (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Putting things into perspective (Score:4, Insightful)
Unfortunately, it's not Adobe who'll be suffering. This is a pure case of Nikon shooting themselves in the foot. With a bazooka, might I add...
Re:Black Hat, White Hat... (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not about the costs of a lawsuit. Adobe has several projects that rely on the DMCA to work. Take encrypted PDFs, for example, or Adobe's encrypted ebook format. When push comes to shove Adobe is heavily invested in the idea of proprietary closed formats.
There response to Nikon's use of a closed format is typical. Like Adobe's so-called secure formats Nikon's RAW format isn't really encrypted, but is instead merely obfusticated. With a little engineering Adobe could read the information they need just fine. However, doing so would weaken the DMCA, and Adobe doesn't want to do that. So instead they are putting economic pressure on Nikon. Adobe knows that quite a few of Nikon's users are going to want to edit their photos in photoshop. Adobe is using its market position to influence Nikon to change its mind.
Eventually Nikon will probably relent and give Adobe permission to open these files. Not only would this give weight to Adobe's interpretation of the DMCA, but if Nikon only gives permission to Adobe to open these files then it would give Adobe a market advantage. After all, Photoshop would be able to get the most out of Nikon's raw format and Adobe's competitors would not.
No one really considers Dmitry a blackhat, probably not even the folks at Adobe. The difference is that Adobe feels that it should be possible to make reverse engineering formats illegal, and Dmitry got in the way.
Good Grief! (Score:5, Insightful)
Nikon, to the best of my understanding, is a camera manufacturer. I have no clue if they do stuff in the whiz-bang imaging market, like Kodak, or Agfa, but it would seem that their business model depends on selling cameras, lenses and other nice gizmos, ideally loads of them.
Assume I'm a Fotografer. Since the times of silver plates and baryt paper (which sure as hell still has it's niche, but I digress) seem somewhat outdated I like to process my digital images with what can be considered the major photo processing application; pretty much the standard in my trade.
And the good burgers from Nikon intend to prevent direct access to crucial parts of the raw data of my images?
I think I buy a Canon!
Re:Good Grief! (Score:3, Funny)
Yes, I can assure you that you are not in the Twilight Zone.
You're in a Dilbert cartoon
Re:Good Grief! (Score:5, Insightful)
I think I buy a Canon!
It's not that simply for a majority of folks that are in the market for cameras like D2X. Most of them already have $10,000 or more invested into Nikon before you even factor the camera body in.
Now they could sell all their Nikon stuff on Ebay for say $5,000, then spend another $10,000 buy the same things for Canon (even assuming that some of the older lens are available, you know the ones that we chipped to get working with the newer cameras).
Sorry that may make sense on /., but it doesn't make sense to real photographers. A few may make that leap, but many will simply stay with their D1's (or even F5's with Provia, and Velvia), until Nikon and Adobe works things out, or someone makes a plug in that hacks it for them.
Re:Good Grief! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Good Grief! (Score:3, Informative)
Well, technically, Nikon is more of a general "optical equipment" manufacturer than just a camera manufacturer. They might be best known to the man on the street for their cameras, and maybe scanners, but the bulk of their revenue comes from the sale industrial optical equipment. We have a couple of them in our cleanroom at work that cost over $1m each, and Leica too for fans of the brand.
So, yes, while this will probably convince some
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
The correct solution... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is exactly what the DMCA was intended to do. I can't remember their being much corporate oppostition to the DMCA when it was being introduced.
Re:The correct solution... (Score:4, Insightful)
Exactly. Or choose not to support the camera. I can't imagine Nikon not trying to get Photoshop support to be rock solid, but that's their choice.
The correct solution...but to which problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
If I take a picture with a Nikon camera, I own the content. Shouldn't I be able to do what I want with it?
Furthermore, what grounds would Nikon have for suing Adobe based on Adobe's violation of encryption that is protecting my copyrighted works? IANALY, but isn't there a "standing" issue here?
Re:The correct solution...but to which problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
When Adobe used the DCMA to go after Russian programmers (a move they rescinded and let the FBI do for them), the DCMA was a great and wonderful thing.
Now, Adobe's learning what a poison pill the DCMA really is. Will this cut short their support for such a law, or next time make them fight such onerous challenges to reasonable copyright as set out by the founders of the United States?
Anyway, that's what I think the poster was talking about.
As for the last part, Nikon could sue Adobe under the DCMA, which states that you can crack encryption for personal use - but you can't tell anyone else how to do it. If Adobe releases a tool that cracks Nikon's encryption algorithm, then Nikon could go after them for some imagined damages.
The best thing is for Nikon to realize their heads are up their asses, remove this stupid encryption algorithm, and for both sides to state publicly that the DCMA is a bad, bad, bad law and they will never give money to any politician who supports it.
Yeah. And monkeys might fly out of my butt, too.
Re:The correct solution...but to which problem? (Score:5, Interesting)
But if the measure is not designed to protect the rights of a copyright owner, I do not believe any device designed to circumvent that measure falls under the DMCA. It is clear to me that encrypting white balance values is not designed to protect my rights as the photographer.
But, I can see why it's scary enough for Adobe to just walk away for the moment.
Re:The correct solution...but to which problem? (Score:3, Insightful)
All I can suggest is that you read the US Code. You'll see that the copyrighted material is a crucial requirement.
If Nikon wishes to patent it's encryption/decryption algorithm for this particular purpose, it's free to do so. But the DMCA cannot be used to replace the patent system. Unless the purpose of the measure (in this case, encryption) is to protect the copyrighted work (that belongs
Re:The correct solution...but to which problem? (Score:3, Informative)
17 USC 1201 (a) states
(3) As used in this subsection - (A) to ''circumvent a technological measure'' means to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner;
17 USC 1201(b) states
(1) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that - (A) is
Re:The correct solution... (Score:5, Informative)
Anyways, notice how Adobe is the only one complaining. I believe it is because Nikon's competing software (and software that other 3rd parties have made) has made Adobe Photoshop less relevant. That is why CS 2 is coming out....to correct the deficiency Photoshop has with regard to digital photography.
Other 3rd party software companies have worked around the WB data, and aren't complaining like Adobe is. There is more to the story than this.
This is getting ridiculous (Score:5, Insightful)
The thing I hate about this sort of legislation, is that once it's on the books, it's very difficult to get repealed.
Other than calling and writing to our representatives, how else do we make our concern known?
Re:This is getting ridiculous (Score:5, Insightful)
How about by buying a Canon camera?
Re:This is getting ridiculous (Score:5, Insightful)
And writing to both Canon and Nikon explaining your purchasing decision.
Re:This is getting ridiculous (Score:3)
You usually build up an entire system (multiple lenses - and a couple of bodies) - and you have to make some choices depending on what you are going to shoot and how much you are willing to spend.
In general, Nikon's lenses are more interoperable than Canon. Canon's latest bodies will only take EOS lenses, not the older FD mount. With Nikon, some of your older lenses will still work (yes - even manual lenses on the latest SLR or Digital SLR (you might not
Re:This is getting ridiculous (Score:5, Insightful)
Bullshite. They knew exactly what the law would be used for and by whom. This law was drafted for the sole purpose of kissing the collective asses of big business.
The thing I hate about this sort of legislation, is that once it's on the books, it's very difficult to get repealed.
Which is why they just keep writing new laws to do the same thing as older laws ( just adding new "technologies" ) rather than changing the old laws to be more technology neutral.
Other than calling and writing to our representatives, how else do we make our concern known?
We can't. In general, we don't have enough clout to get the politicians to even listen to us, let alone to get them to actually hear us.
Re:This is getting ridiculous (Score:3, Interesting)
And it's made worse by the fact that we don't even REALLY know what the effects of the DMCA are. The headline implies that the DMCA is preventing Adobe from supporting Nikon's format. In fact, Adobe is saying that it doesn't really know whether it would be a DMCA violation or not. But it doesn't want to chance it.
To be sure, a lot of things in copyright law, such a
Re:This is getting ridiculous (Score:5, Insightful)
I wouldn't let them off the hook that easily. Our legislators were told by consumer rights advocates that this was the type of thing that would happen. Of course supporters of the DMCA told the legislators that nobody would ever stoop that low.
Guess who they beleived?
What's good for the Goose (Score:3, Interesting)
FUCK THEM (Score:5, Insightful)
So FUCK THEM. Karma has bitten their asses, and I don't feel sorry at all.
Re:FUCK THEM (Score:3, Informative)
Your hate.
YOUR HATE.
YOUR YOUR YOUR.
A high end digital camera without Photoshop? (Score:3, Interesting)
Isn't it in Nikon's best interests (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Isn't it in Nikon's best interests (Score:5, Funny)
Dear Adobe,
Please be advised that some aspects of our new RAW file format will be stored in an encrypted format. If you wish to support our new format, we are happy to license the decryption mechanism to you for $5 for every copy of Photoshop you sell or that you upgrade to allow to process our format. Please note that, under the terms of the DCMA, you are required to license our technology if you wish to support the thousands of Nikon customers in your customer base. We hope you agree that this is a small price to pay to continue to support our cameras.
Sincerely,
Nikon.
Dear Nikon,
Fuck you.
Sincerely,
Adobe.
LOL (Score:5, Funny)
" -- Hmm... I know! Let's radically decrease the usefulness of our flagship camera by making it incompatible with the program that probably 90+% of professionals use!
-- Yes, great idea! And if they try to go around it, we'll sue them under DMCA!"
How about a DMCA opinon, here? (Score:5, Interesting)
This is a little strange, isn't it? If a photographer takes a picture, it's pretty clear that the photog owns the copyright to that photo. Nikon couldn't possibly claim any rights on photos taken with their camera, least of all because it would make it impossible for professionals to use that equipment. And with $5K cameras, you're really only looking at the professional market.
So if the white balance information (the encrypted stuff) is a part of the photograph, the photographer owns the copyright on that data, too, right? That seems pretty straightforward, but I could be wrong...
Can the DMCA be applied to prevent you from decrypting something that you own the copyright on? This isn't even like owning a DVD and wanting to decrypt the data, because in that case the movie company owns the copyright.
If the DMCA can be applied that way, that's some fucked-up shit. It's just absurd.
Not so strange (Score:3, Interesting)
I countered with "If that were true, Microsoft would own the copyright to everything you write with Word."
You could see the gears in his head seize at the thought. After close to a minute
Re:How about a DMCA opinon, here? (Score:3, Interesting)
What the DMCA does prevent is anybody (like Adobe) from "traficking" in software which decrypts the data. It
A brief summary. (Score:3, Funny)
First, Adobe has a guy arrested [slashdot.org], and then tried [eff.org] under the DMCA, for having the gall to crack the PDF format, which Adobe voilated the DMCA [slashdot.org] by embedding other font vendors' information into.
Now, even though someone has broken an ineffective [planetpdf.com] encryption method, they can't use the files due to the DMCA. Maybe they'll just keep buying companies [google.com] until they have all the IP they need? :)
I'm a sys-admin for a pro lab (Score:4, Insightful)
This will get resolved. (Score:4, Insightful)
Nikon has its own RAW plugin for Photoshop (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Nikon has its own RAW plugin for Photoshop (Score:3, Insightful)
Afraid of getting sued? (Score:4, Insightful)
Two thoughts. (Score:5, Insightful)
Photoshop's RAW converter is considered by many in the industry to be mediocre. Nikon wants images from their flagship camera to be processed well, reflecting the quality of their product.
[More Realistic Angle]
Nikon wants to sell more copies of its Nikon Capture software, which is a superior RAW converter, hands down. $100 for a copy of NC is penuts to a pro, and the savings in their time will be significant.
Re:Two thoughts. (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course Adobe's RAW converter isn't as good as Nikon's - Nikon has made it illegal for Adobe to produce one with as high a quality. That's not exactly a ringing endorsement of Nikon's programming prowess (although he seemed competent enough in "Hackers").
It's just whitebalance.. for now (Score:5, Informative)
As the article itself mentions, it's not really that big a deal. It is the white balance parameters as set on the camera when the image was shot that is encrypted. The RAW data isn't directly affected by this, and picking a white-balance preset or performing manual/auto whitebalacing on the RAW data gives you the same/similar/better results (that's partly the point of shooting RAW, no?)
What could be worse is if they encrypted the data as well. This is what SONY does on the F828 and V3, for example.
However, both are supported by Photoshop's RAW support, so I take it they simply licensed or SONY gave them a thumbs up for supporting it. No idea why they encrypt it, though.
Regardless.. that's what would have to happen with any future encrypted formats.. I doubt we've seen the last of them anyway.
If all else fails, get the dcraw utils ( http://www.cybercom.net/~dcoffin/dcraw/ [cybercom.net] ) and convert from one raw to another. That's where the SONY decryptor is also hosted.
Speaking of dcraw... has Adobe given the author credit yet ?
The real question: (Score:4, Insightful)
No. The real question is: If I already use Photoshop, why would I want Nikon Capture? After all, it only does half of what Photoshop CS can do, and won't be compatable with my clients.
Pros aren't going to be dumping Photoshop any time soon. And while there're not, there's not much of a reason to use something else. Unless, of course, the company who made your camera is trying to lock you in, in which case you might consider another brand.
Why is Nikon so hot and bothered about image editing all of a suddern anyway?
Thomas Knoll says (Score:5, Interesting)
Dmitri must be enjoying the hell out of this (Score:5, Interesting)
Maybe it's just an Adobe scam (FUD Mongering) (Score:3, Interesting)
I've read that Nikon actually hasn't encrypted the WB *yet*. It also seems that if Nikon wanted to force people to use thier products they would encrypt much more then WB.
It seems highly possible that this a ploy by Adobe to freak people out about propritary RAW formats so everyone will demand thier next camera be DNG compatible (DNG being Adobe's "Standard" Propritary RAW format (Think Microsoft)).
Oh the irony (Score:3, Insightful)
Adobe went after Sklyarov with the DMCA for removing Adobe's ebook protections.
Now they're on the other end of the stick, and have to cripple their premier application.
I wonder if they still think they did the right thing by going after Dmitry.
Someone explain to me how white balance information on a picture you took, on a camera you own, is any of Nikon's business. DMCA or otherwise.
The Coolpix 8800 will be my LAST Nikon (Score:3, Informative)
Another example is with the current CoolPix 8800, the filter thread is 53.5 mm, which is frustratingly close to the 55 mm they could have made it, but oh no, they want to force me to buy their lame-ass filters. I can't even buy an ND8, or an ND64, or a conkin converter because of the wierd size.
I'm fed up, I'm going to get a Canon, or Sony next time. Nikon technology is great, but the company sucks, they need to get a clue [cluetrain.org].
--Mike--
The Corporate View (Score:5, Insightful)
But that's not the monumentally stupid part. The once-in-a-lifetime blunder is in the numbers. In order to pull a few million in software sales, they are throwing away a billion dollars in brand value. Value that took 50 years to build. Value they will likely never be able to reclaim. That brand recognition gets them shelf space in stores, and ensures their cameras are reviewed by journalists, and gets their products support from companies like Adobe. The annual worth of those benefits is probably 10x the revenue they could hope to pull from their software. Unbelievable.
Agreed. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:License (Score:5, Insightful)
Because it always makes my hemerroids itch, when a manufacturer demands a toll in order for me to access my data.
I hope this helps.
Re:License Bingo! (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm imagining Nikon makes a presentation to Adobe about their products, "we need Adobe's support" blah blah blah. And then when Nikon gets to the specifics of their high-end camera they tell Adobe, "Nikon is giving Adobe a wonderful opportunity to license our RAW technology for use in Adobe products!"
After Nikon buys Adobe people an expensive lunch, Adobe is indignant that they must license the RAW import technology. They are ADOBE SYSTEMS for gosh's sake. Adobe Engineering can hack their way into it, but Nikon's smart and is leaving the litigation door open.
Adobe then attempts to reassert their dominance by making Nikon/DMCA out to be the bad guys (which IMHO they are not.)in the press in an attempt to get industry/public opinion on their side.
I give Adobe kudos for doing whatever it takes to get a lower price/free technology. It takes real talent to make customers feel good while they take it up the a**. I'd be much better off if I could do it as well as they do.
Re:License (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, let's all just walk away from one of the largest manufacturers of cameras on the planet.
As much as it sucks, this is a limitation on how to get the highest resolution images from the camera. Nikon sells software to access these image files. Phot
Re:foolish? (Score:4, Insightful)
Lots of people have file formats that are DMCA protected, including Adobe. And I bet Adobe wants you to pay their licensing fees...
Re:why not just shoot jpeg? (Score:5, Informative)
Everyone else shoots raw because you get all 12 bits of dynamic range which is necessary for quality cast corrections, you can perfect white balance later (or experiment with it), and you dont have to deal with compression and sharpening artifacts that shooting jpeg does, you can do better tonal curves... the reasons are numerous.
In sum, the only people who should ever shoot jpeg are snapshooters and professionals who must do instant turnaround.
Re:why not just shoot jpeg? (Score:4, Informative)
One is that the camera (sometimes) has an onboard white balance sensor that detects the temperature of the light you're in. These sensors vary in quality so on some cameras they might be useless, while on others they might work really well. Some cameras do this on the chip... but if its accurate, its good to know.
The other reason is time. If your camera accurately set the white balance for you, you dont have to mess with it in photoshop, thus saving time, and assuming you dont feel like changing the white balance.